Apparent discrepancies in permit application and enforcement
Controversy continues over a recent commercial influencer event held in a residential Malibu neighborhood. A Special Event Permit was issued by the city on Sept. 22 for a purported backyard celebration to be hosted the next day by a local resident, despite apparent red flags communicated by a neighbor and multiple discrepancies on the face of the application itself. As it turned out, the Sept. 23 shindig was a promotional event for Kourtney Kardashian’s company Poosh to be posted on the attendees’ social media accounts.
The $118 permit application required, as an express condition of approval, same-day setup and takedown despite then-Mayor Bruce Silverstein having already alerted the city code enforcement office of party set-up beginning Sept. 21. Silverstein provided city staff photos of the event setup, calling it a possible fire hazard with boxes piled outside the residence. The application, a copy of which was obtained online by The Malibu Times, appears to misstate the event’s purpose when the applicant failed to check a box that it was a promotional event and instead represented its purpose to be “girlfriends [sic] day at the pool.” In another apparent discrepancy, the submitted site plan reflects a baby shower and gender reveal.
After the permit was issued but prior to the event, additional incidents of apparent non-compliance were observed. Silverstein provided photos of event staff parked on the landside of Pacific Coast Highway behind a staff parking sign, a violation of the permit’s express requirement that all event parking be limited to the applicant’s property grounds and to two properties on the ocean side of PCH with shuttle service to the event site. The Malibu Municipal Code sections governing SEPs require a notice of the event to be posted “in a conspicuous location on the property that is visible from the adjacent street,” yet that requirement also was apparently not satisfied. One resident wrote to Silverstein, expressing surprise at the city’s posture: “you’re the Mayor and get treated with indifference. Now imagine how the rest of Malibu is treated.”
In the most recent City Council meeting, Silverstein argued that code enforcement suggests preferential treatment of celebrities and well-heeled interests with incidents of non-compliance and non-enforcement of the city’s permitting procedures in this case and others, including a recent wedding on Broad Beach and big events for YSL and Nobu.
The Malibu Times reached out to city’s media information officer, Matt Myerhoff, with the following questions, among others:
The permit application provides that the applicant was Harper Sloane Productions, but the applicant signature was that of the property owner. Why was an SEP application that was not signed by the applicant, as required, approved?
Malibu civil code requires that all applicants submit an affidavit along with the application. Why was this SEP approved without the required affidavit?
The SEP indicates that the event was a “girlfriends (sic) day at the pool” but the required site plan clearly implies that the event is a baby shower given that the proposed balloon entryway states “It’s a baby!” and the right upper corner of the site plan indicates a gender reveal. Why was this discrepancy not investigated and reconciled prior to approval of the application?
Section 5.34.030A.5 requires the applicant to attest in a signed affidavit that he/she is the person hosting the special event. The application represents that the property is not being rented for the event, but the owner’s signature on the application indicates a Texas notarization dated Sept. 22, the date of the permit approval. Why was the application treated as an owner-hosted event and not a self-evident rental?
Section 5.34.040A provides the city 10 working days to approve or deny an application. Why was this application approved on the date of submission without research as to the above discrepancies?
Section 5.34.040B required the applicant to post a conspicuous notice no later than Sept. 22. Why was the event permitted to continue unimpeded despite what we understand to be no conspicuous notice?
Section 5.34.040 requires the city to issue no SEPs for six months at a property that violated the terms of the SEP. Has Malibu staff been instructed not to approve any additional SEPs at the address at this time?
When asked these and other questions, Myerhoff replied, “The City Manager’s office is conducting a review of the matter and will be reporting those findings back to the City Council.”
As Silverstein sees it, “One of the most significant issues is the city’s failure to follow its own code and require an affidavit — which requires that the affiant attest to the truth of the facts of the application under penalty of perjury. If that were to occur, and the application turns out to be false, it is a criminal matter.”
The Malibu Times reached out to the Los Angeles event planner, Harper Sloane Productions. Their response was, “No thank you. No comment.”